Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep. (NAC)   S warm  ( Talk ) 08:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The few parts of this which are not WP:OR are either about the game generally or drawn from sources which are not independent, being drawn from press releases. The Rock Band series is notable. The fact you can download songs for it is significant to the Rock Band game. 2009 in sport, yes. 2009 in fashion, perhaps. but 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series? That belongs on a fan-wiki. Previously kept based on WP:ITSUSEFUL and similar arguments and the fact that the list had become unwieldy. The way to deal with unwieldy original research is not to split it out into smaller chunks of original research. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are essentially the same thing, so if one is nominated, they all should be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The material is exactly of the nature that belongs on Wikipedia. See discographies for various bands, book lists for various authors, episode lists for various TV shows for examples of other pages listing similar kind of information. There are many thousands of such pages, the claim that this sort of content does not belong on Wikipidea seems to be against established practice. 22:56 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.122.160 (talk)  — 87.194.122.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete entirely per nom. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 13:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stronb Keep This is not OR. The coverage of what songs come out each week is first announced and then subsequently tracked by Harmonix as a primary source, but will always be covered by multiple sources once they've made that announcement. (See, for example, this list of google news results that are for next week's DLC; yes, not every hit is a reliable source, but there's certainly are more than a few (1UP.com, IGN) that are. This demonstrates that independent sources place value on this information) If it made sense, we could source the entirety of this to those sources, but it doesn't here; all the information can be sourced from one place, and one ref is much more valuable than what would need to be 52 separate ones.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not everything that is true, or even verifiable, belongs in Wikipedia.  As the nominator says, this may belong on a fan wiki, but it doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia.  Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there is a noted connection between appearing as DLC and the impact on a band or song sales as a result (see, for example, ), in addition to these games having an otherwise larger impact on the music industry, this is not just flat out information for information purposes, but a means to allow those researching music to follow the trends. --M ASEM (t) 16:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for heaven's sake, that sounds appallingly pretentious. People "researching music" wont be reading year-by-year lists of downloadable songs for $RANDOMGAME on Wikipedia. When I research music I read books and reliable online sources. Knowing that a song is available for download for a game tells us precisely nothing about the song or its significance, it just tells us that the song is reasonably popular and the game publishers were able to agree a mutually satisfactory licensing deal. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is still there: these games have affected the music industry (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). If this were just a normal video game soundtrack (where the music is simply background noise), that's one thing, but the music game genre has altered music licensing in the last few years, making the inclusion of a song in a game a more significant event than just the signing of a licensing deal.  And again, I point out that technically it is possible to make this list all sourced to numerous secondary sources each week, but adding (at minimum) 52 separate sources when one single primary one will do is unnecessary; using Harmonix' own site in this manner is using a reliable, online source. --M ASEM  (t) 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Guy's oversimplified argument could be applied to other instances of music as well. For example, people "researching music" won't be reading lists of songs for $RANDOMMOVIE on Wikipedia.  Therefore soundtracks become irrelevant.  Also, it seems rather pretentious to assume that those with interest in music wouldn't also be interested in exploring new ways to enjoy that music. -- TRTX T / C 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, the article is no different than any other soundtrack (video game, movie, or otherwise). The division into different years (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) was done due to the ever expanding size of the article.  The article (along with all articles related to the Rock Band soundtrack) were strongly kept in a snowball decision the last time, and the nominator has brought nothing new to the discussion to demonstrate why this AfD should be discussed yet again.  I also question why the nominator felt it neccesary to single out 2009 when articles also exist for 2007, 2008, and 2010.  Perhaps more familiarity with the history of discussions with these articles would help them understand the reason this article exists.  -- TRTX T / C 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional Note - The nominator's reasons for deletion misrepresent the actual discussion that took place during previous round of AFDs, and seems to be an argument towards a closed AFD as opposed to any new reasoning for why this discussion should be reopened. -- TRTX T / C 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep since the consensus of the WP community is that WP should be a storage place for all published information in case there is a nuclear war, gigantic solar flare, or alien invasion and all the rest of the Internet and all libraries are destroyed leaving WP alone to preserve human civilisation. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know why we have a list on this. We should probably also nominate the other lists as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete; does not belong in an encyclopedia. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, this was no different than the generic "argument" raised in the initial discussions the last time these sets of articles were nominated. But that is the problem with this nomination.  There has been no change in the articles format/content/structure/meaning since the lost nom, and the nominator has reopened the discussions with no new arguments (instead only refuteing arguments made in the last discussion which was closed as "Keep" under WP:SNOW.  That's the problem with this nom.  There is literally nothing new being brought to the table in terms of nomation reasons. Hence why I suggested earlier that the nominator readup on previous AFD discussions before restating the same argument. -- TRTX T / C 21:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One pile-on of game fans does not make an article encyclopaedic. And I did read the previous debate. It was full of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and similar arguments (just as this is).. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You again make the mistake of grouping the arguments of all those in favor with those who made the above arguments. I could do the same and oversimplfy the opposing viewpoint as being WP:IDONTLIKEIT and especially in this case WP:KEEPLISTING since nothing new has been brought to the discussion in favor of deletion. -- TRTX T / C 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep While lists may not be in accordance with an encyclopedia, Wikipedia transcends that. This list of Complete Songs is no different than Complete Episode listings for most television shows with Wikipedia Pages. In addition, I use this page every week to review songs I am considering purchasing, and new songs released on a weekly basis. Probably my most frequently visited Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.175.196 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)  — 67.163.175.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Nom's rationale is flawed. None of the information is original research, having come from multiple sources.  The argument that it follows primary sources only is irrelevant as when up-coming tracks are previewed in other sources they are used so long as deemed notable.  This listing is no different than a listing of television episodes.  These articles support the base article, and provide the reader with the information they desire as an expansion to the parent article.  Nominator also paints a false picture regarding the consensus of the previous set of AfDs. --Teancum (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the arguments resulting in the previous snowball keep AfD. Certainly not original research, as the announcement of new DLC is covered at every video game news source I follow. Maxamegalon2000 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Teancum's and TRTX's arguments is best described why. Absolutely 0% of this information is original research considering it is kept in sync with the actual Rock Band music store.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Although there are many places to find this information, the split lists of all years contributes to easier access to finding the songs that are already available for the game and for the songs in the upcoming week. --Nascarfan1964 (talk) 0:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Many people (including myself) use this particular entry to make informed decisions on what songs to purchase. Rock Band is not a "random" video game. It is one of the most important music games of the era and has been very influential. There are so many more lists that are less informative and important than this one. Just because it doesn't affect you any, doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is not original research and is very organized and cited. --LtFrost 11:46, Feb 28 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtFrost (talk • contribs)  — LtFrost (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep Exactly; if this list is deleted how is anyone going to know what songs there are for download? It takes a heck of a lot longer to sift through the list within the game than on here; in the game there is no "Find" feature where you can just type in the name of your favorite band and see all of the songs by them.  Not to mention it takes a lot longer to load most videogames than it does to load Wikipedia...Black Yoshi (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information. Fails our standards in pretty much every way possible, in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is a well sourced, well laid out page with plenty of coverage indiscriminate? Why not just say "per nom"?  You have failed to point out what exactly is flawed. --Teancum (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Masem. The list demonstrates adequate sourcing and is well-organized and clear about its inclusion criteria. Incidentally, we are doing a great job covering this subject area - this is probably the best page of its type on the internet. While we can agree or disagree on whether this list meets various deletion criteria, there's no doubt that our readers, who care nothing for our notability guidelines, will be ill-served by this deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The most compelling argument in the nominator's opening statement is that the title sucks, which I'll whole-heartedly agree with. However, I fail to see how the list counts as original research, given that everything is sourced... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I'm sorry, when did soundtracks become OR? This list, along with the other Rock Band and Guitar Hero lists (many of which have been upgraded to Featured List status) is basically a soundtrack for what songs are available to download, along with vital information such as artist, genre, how the song is available, and when it became available. By nominating this list for deletion, you're basically saying all the peer reviews all the aforementioned lists went through were faulty and useless. Crazydiamond1to9 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Rock Band had, say, fifteen playable tracks, it would be very reasonable to have a list of them in the main encyclopedia article. The fact that it has however-many-hundred doesn't change that, it simply means that the list needs splitting out and organising, which is what these pages achieve. This is a perfect example of ancillary information that is encyclopedic, but would not generally appear in a paper encyclopedia due to lack of space. With no such constraint, and given that this information is indeed all sourced, I view this as a perfectly valid set of list articles. ~ mazca  talk 13:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a silly idea. Why don't we create an artcile List of Rock Band underwear, available on eBay? DVdm (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:SALAT, WP:NOTCATALOG. Too specific for a general encyclopedia. These lists are entirely reproduced from http://www.rockband.com/music/songs, which will always be more WP:USEFUL than the corresponding Wikipedia lists (hint: it's sortable by release date). That raises some WP:COPYVIO issues as well. It's also a case of WP:ADVERT for a company performed by undiscerning fanboys; see WP:NOPRICES. Pcap ping  17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a copyvio here. These lists have been developed over time as songs are announced for availability; at worst we're talking a database (yes, I know that opens other questions) which in general cannot be copyrighted. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent demonstration of your ability to throw policy at the wall. But let's go through these one at a time shall we?  And actually discuss why you feel these merit application.
 * WP:SALAT - "Stand-alone lists 'are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." - Since this is not a policy regarding what can/cannot belong in lists, let's look at the lead. Have you argued verifibility?  No, there's plenty of reliable third party sources.  Have you argued original research?  No, there's no synthesis here...no more than any other article that combines several sources into a list.  Have you argued neutrality?  Well, you accuse those who have created the list of doing so simply as advertising, which only accomplishes a breach in the idea of assuming good faith.
 * WP:NOTCATALOG - You appear to only be applying this guideline since there the article includes prices. So in that regard, it would appear you would have no issue if the prices are removed.  That is something that could be discussed within the article talk page...not something that an AFD would hae to force out.
 * WP:USEFUL - You appear to use this link only to pad your argument. Useful/not useful is a matter of opinion, and is typically not "useful" in an AFD discussion.  Yes, there will be sources more useful than the article...but isn't that because the nature of WP is to be a summation of a topic using multiple fleshed out sources?  Yep, there's another place on the web with this list.  Guess what, there's also places on the web that have soundtrack listings, movie summaries, cast lists, and sports stats.  Yet all of those things are summarized and maintained here on WP are they not?
 * WP:COPYVIO - How is this a copyright violation? It's a soundtrack.  There's nothing more you can do with a soundtrack than list the songs and artists.  Where you could possibly have concern is in the information surrounding the list itself, but since that is pulled from sources and inserted where appropriate, there is no more issue with quotes/references than any other article.
 * WP:ADVERT - Another carelessly flung out accusation. The language is "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." Since the only evidence of any sort of "sales" that you seem to think exists is the pricing information, than a "Strong Delete" seems like a rather harsh resoution when the policy you toss out explicity states: "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view."
 * So again you seem to be going for the easiest solution vs. actually discussing any potential improvements. -- TRTX T / C 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment and inquiry - To those above with deletes, I would like to point out the fact that it has been established that the lists of songs as shipped with these games are considered appropriate (see eg List of songs in Guitar Hero, List of songs in Rock Band.) It is also considered appropriate that these include the list of songs added through downloadable content (eg List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour, List of songs in The Beatles: Rock Band). By extension, there seems to be justification for these lists, but to some point, I can understand the concern about indiscriminate that has been raised. It is important to note that the Rock Band series is getting another outlet for songs, through the Rock Band Network which is all user-generated content. Those editors involved in these are still debating whether to including a list of such because there is no necessary quality control by a single source (it's all peer-review) - in other words, in this particular situation, that's edging on indiscriminate. But here, on these specific lists, these are songs that Harmonix has tracked and placed into the series, each week receiving third-party coverage by gaming sources of their availability. It is only the fact that Harmonix has remained proficient in this with well over 800 songs between all the lists over the last several years, as opposed, say, how Guitar Hero has released multiple games with multiple on-disk songs.  The point that I ask for clarification here is, given that some lists of songs have been determined to be appropriate, why are people drawing the line here?  That may help to understand what those seeking deletion would rather see. --M ASEM  (t) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It's not that far-fetched of a compilation of information.  The Guitar Hero soundtrack lists are almost all FL status, and although I know that just because they're FL doesn't mean this one should be, at the same time it's useful information that is not difficult to piece together into one place.  To those who say it's ADVERT or NOPRICES, we used to include difficulty levels for each track; that wasn't needed.  I don't see why this is an issue for some people. Anthony (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Or, rather, go through and delete every band's discography, every writer's bibliography, etc. This is useful information, I reference this page very often. Daytman (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As above, I would often use this page as reference as I find it is more up to date and holds more information than any fan site ever does or ever could. I would usually visit this page at least once a week due to the reasons I have already stated. I feel that removing this page will inconvenience many people. 92.21.246.212 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The purpose of this list seems to be little more than a consumer guide listing, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to know what songs you can buy for Rock band, go somewhere else. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But what if all the rest of the Internet is destroyed and Wikipedia is the only place left? Then this information will be lost forever. Please see: Library of Alexandria. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. After reading Library of Alexandria I see that its story is not so simple as I had thought. But still it is a good example of the need to protect information in multiple storage places. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From that article: "By decree of Ptolemy III of Egypt, all visitors to the city were required to surrender all books and scrolls, as well as any form of written media in any language in their possession which, according to Galen, were listed under the heading "books of the ships". Official scribes then swiftly copied these writings, some copies proving so precise that the originals were put into the library, and the copies delivered to the unsuspecting owners." Clearly it foreshadowed Wikipedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as an earlier discussion closed mere months ago by WP:SNOW, which we have yet again this time around. Anytime at least a dozen editors in good standing determine a subject is notable, the subject does not become less notable.  Renominations are not intended for articles that were previously kept, only those that were previously deleted.  For example, if we had a deletion discussion back in 1971 for Avatar (2009 film) that closed as delete as a hoax or something, well, okay that would be a reasonable close, but due to what happened in the past year, no serious editor would not contest that article despite the earlier discussion.  By contrast, 41 years from now, no serious editor will say we should delete the article that we thought should be kept now, because it has somehow become less notable.  Notability, as subjective and anti-encyclopedic of a concept as it is, only increases.  Indeed, if anything, the songs of Rock Band have only become more important since the previous discussion.  In any event, most of this article is unoriginal research as it is and can be sourced through reliable secondary sources including Kotaku, which frequently features articles commenting on the weekly downloadable content, as well as magazine articles: “Rock Band’s Five Most Unexpectedly Rockin’ Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band’s Five Most Disappointingly Boring Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band DLC,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine 024 (October 2009): 55; etc.  That which is verified in multiple reliable sources in separate articles that not only list, but comment on the choice of specific songs, focusing on the songs specifically rather than on the game as a whole, meets any common sense or valid interpretation of Wikipedia's ever changing policies and guidelines, which is why no serious editor will post another bolded "delete" in this discussion after my post.  This article belongs on Wikipedia.  The only delete votes we are seeing are nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or "I don't know about it" or "It's just not important me", none of which are legitimate reasons for deletion, because there are no legitimate reasons.  This discriminate article that lists songs playable in a major game series on multiple systems that are verified and anaylzed in numerous reliable secondary sources on the web and in print is unquestionably wikipedic and passes our standards in pretty much every way possible.  As usual in a list discussion we such silly apples and oranges comparisons as songs (the major musical element of a game) compared with a hypothetical "List of Rock Band underwear, available on eBay" that not only would no one seriously suggest be created in the first place, but that no one would suggest because unlike this article, it is not something discussed in dozens of reliable secondary sources.  Or we wind up with the usually incivility by someone with neither knowledge nor interest in this topic dismissing others as mere "fanboys".  This article passes WP:SALAT and is consistent with Wikipedia's First pillar, i.e. we are not just a general encyclopedia, but also an almanac, specialized encyclopedia, and gazetteer.  The purpose of this list is to cover an influential element of a major series that has relevance to not just the video game industry, but also the music industry.  Once someone says things like "go somewhere else," well, we can go somewhere else for an article on Napoleon as well, but that does not mean we should not also cover it here.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - good point regarding Five pillars. It's something I haven't thought about before (wikilinked it in your comment as well). --Teancum (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. Plainly notable, does not violate any policies, issues with potential original research within the article should not be addressed with deletion. Croctotheface (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The OR argument is confusing, as everything on these pages is readily sourced.  The only other real delete argument here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as people somehow seem to think that video game information isn't "real-world" enough to be in an encyclopedia. Oren0 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is regularly updated content that is of great use to thousands of people making decisions on purchases, it violates nothing. It's a discography for a game, go delete all the other discographies out there first. mcai3db3 — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — mcai3db3 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep This is the most up-to-date and complete list of new songs I have found. I regularly check this site for updates.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.254.249 (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is a regularly updated soundtrack for a music video game. The fact that some people use it to inform their purchases is irrelevant.  As long as there is an entry for the Rock Band series, there should be a list of songs associated with it.  Jollyv (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Why was this even put up for deletion? This is an incredibly well kept and updated article. It is preposterous to even put it up for debate for deletion. It stays. I regularly check this article for the latest DLC and it has been the most convenient source for DLC for years. Doshindude (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-sourced, clearly notable according the the standards of WP:N. WP:IDONTLIKEIT-style arguments cannot be relied upon to sustain a vote to delete. At best, I can see an argument for merger, possibly with collapsible lists, but deletion is unreasonable according to the community standards. If editors don't like this kind of article on Wikipedia, then as far as I understand it their problem lies with WP:N itself. The appropriate place to voice such concerns is at WP:RFC (see WP:PROPOSAL). -Thibbs (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging isn't an option; even if collapsible, it'd be a huge single page (which would be daunting both to load and to maintain), which is why the list is currently four individual articles that a transcluded on Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I've got no qualms with it as it stands per se. I'm just saying I'd be more receptive to merge arguments than to deletion votes. -Thibbs (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It's simple to maintain, and is used by many people. It's existence does not negatively affect the wiki in any way. CheddarBBQ (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Deleting this article is absolutely erroneous. I watch this page like a hawk, as do many other Rock Band owners. It is exactly the kind of page that makes Wikipedia such a great source of information. I cannot believe this is even being considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.249.55 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * VERY STRONG KEEP I frequent this page at least once a week! It keeps me informed as to what to expect from XBox Live! This page is extremely useful. Please keep! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.179.242 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * VERY STRONG KEEP I am also a frequent user of this information and am glad that it has been assembled for me in such an easy to find fation. I appreciate the work of the people who keep this list up to date and would not want to see it removed.--99.240.225.50 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I use this page quite frequently to review songs to purchase as most people have mentioned. It is a clean list which follows the same collective information such as an episode list. Lists are okay on Wikipedia, this one should be no different. -- Tommy Boy ♪   ♪  03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep This page absolutely belongs on wiki. This list is useful and accurate.  There are many lists on wiki that should be deleted before this.  Merging the list maybe.  Anyone who thinks wiki is a real encyclopedia is insane, most of the articles on here would not be in an encyclopedia. jvfulcher (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.